Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Opinion

Words are not violence – Why Will Smith was wrong to strike Chris Rock.

Published

6 minute read

This article submitted by Levi Kump

It is news to exactly no one, that Sunday night, Will Smith responded to a contentious, and arguably tasteless joke, by walking on stage at the Acadamy Awards and slapping the the offending party, one Chris Rock, across the face. Much has been made already about whether or not the incident was staged, though the ensuing furor has rendered that debate largely moot. Many people have chimed in on the issue, some saying the Smith was unequivocally wrong, and some, including no less than The National Post’s Barbara Kay, coming down on the the side of a face slap being fair play.

Let it be known, I believe Smith and Kay, are both wrong. First and foremost, because one of the tenets of civilization in general, is the old adage that, “ones right to get angry, stops at the next fellow’s nose”. Nothing new here. Setting aside for a moment that the slap was to the cheek/jaw area, I believe that notion still holds water. Genuine or not, this incident implies that there are some statements for which the only possible rebuttal, is the fist. The challenges with this way of thinking are legion, and until only a few years ago, seemed to have already been worked out in western society. Not the least of said problems is this: if words are violence itself, and answerable as such, then we no longer have any reason to use words. When one equates the verbal with the somatic, it is a very quick descent indeed, to using violence in any given situation. Why struggle for the ‘mot juste’, when one can move stright to a head kick?

Following this line of reasoning, we end up back, hundreds of years, to the time of, “might makes right”; which again, our civilization had once worked out, but now seems to be forgetting. One of the more common lines of reasoning for the “speech as violence” crowd, is that disparities in power give far more weight to some people’s words, than others. In the Smith/Rock debacle, this is hardly worth a mention, as both men are of the same demographic, read: multi-millionaires of the same skin tone. Though there are those who will point out, as did Barbera Kay, that the target of Rock’s joke, was not Will Smith himself, but rather his wife, Jada, who does in fact suffer from an auto immune disease, and whose hair loss is by no means her own fault. A powerful comedian making jokes about a/an (equally powerful?) woman’s physical condition should be off limits, or so goes the argument. The easy reply here is that there are
those, myself among them, who do not believe that anything should be off limits in speech.

Noting here that, not unlike our separation of words and action, society did away with the idea of ‘lese majest’ some time back. There are yet some who do not believe in this, and who think that the relative power of two parties (and exactly how do we quantify this?) matter to a verbal exchange. That the words of the more powerful party are in fact so weighty, that again, the only fair response, is a physical one. This begs the question, that if the words of the powerful are
unfairly weighted, how much more so are thier blows? It is to me, an untenable position. Slapping a man for speech only ends badly for everyone. Until very recently, we all seem to have understood this.

There was once a common convention, that words, for all their power, are clearly not violence. The fact that this is now somehow considered up for debate, does not bode well for society writ large. Any reasonable person will admit that words can be incredibly hurtful, damaging, and cruel. To deny this is foolish. Physical violence however, has all those dangers, along with a side order of split lips, contusions, and concussions. Indeed, whatever “damage” one suffers from words, one is still left with the ability to speak in rebuttal. A solid blow of any kind can not only dissuade retort, but neuter it completely. Perhaps this is what the proponents of violent response are after in the first place? If so, its  disappointing. As I said, i thought we had worked this out.

 

Levi Kump is a former competitive international Muay Thai champion. 

He is a trainer and owner of One Martial Arts, a fitness facility in Edmonton. 

 

 

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

International

Trump orders federal employees to remove pronouns from email signatures by end of day

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Doug Mainwaring

In yet another blow to gender ideology, President Donald Trump has ordered employees in multiple federal agencies to remove pronouns from their email signatures by the end of the business day today.   

A memo from the Office of Personnel Management “instructs federal agencies to turn off all email features that prompt users for pronouns, cancel trainings that have in the past ‘promoted gender ideology,’ disband employee resource groups, and ensure bathrooms are designated only for ‘women, girls, or females (or for men, boys, or males),’” reported The Washington Post. “It also required agencies to review all position descriptions and take down all outward-facing media that ‘inculcate or promote gender ideology.’” 

“Pronouns and any other information not permitted in the policy must be removed from CDC/ATSDR employee signatures by 5.p.m. ET on Friday,” read one memo sent to staff at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Staff are being asked to alter signature blocks by 5.p.m. ET today (Friday, January 31, 2025) to follow the revised policy.” 

Employees at the Department of Transportation were likewise instructed to “remove pronouns from everything from government grant applications to email signatures across the department,” according to a report by ABC News. 

“Employees at the Department of Energy who received a similar notice Thursday were told this was to meet requirements in Trump’s executive order calling for the removal of DEI ‘language in Federal discourse, communications and publications,’” explained the ABC News report.  

On Tuesday, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that “the agency is returning to its mission of protecting women from sexual harassment and sex-based discrimination in the workplace by rolling back the Biden administration’s gender identity agenda.”

Continue Reading

Addictions

When pleasure becomes pain: How substance use damages the body and brain

Published on

By Alexandra Keeler

Sustained drug use profoundly impacts brain function and physical health, leading to irreversible damage and long-term health risks

On Jan. 3, the US’s top doctor made headlines for recommending that alcoholic drinks include health warnings about their cancer risks. Alcohol consumption is a leading preventable cause of cancer, U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy’s advisory notes.

Murthy’s recommendation comes amidst mounting attention to the health risks of alcohol consumption. In 2023, the World Health Organization sparked controversy when it said “no level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health.”

But all substance use affects the body, sources say, with illegal substances damaging nearly every organ in the body. Yet, the health effects of illegal substances receive relatively little attention.

“If you’ve ever looked at a population of people with substance use disorder [and] compared them to the general population, they would be worse off in terms of their cardiovascular risk,” said Dr. Christopher Labos, a Montreal-based cardiologist and host of The Body of Evidence podcast.

Several confounders

Illicit drugs like fentanyl, heroin and cocaine affect the body in all sorts of ways. But isolating their direct effects can be difficult, experts say, due to the social factors that often accompany addiction.

“People who are suffering from substance use disorder probably have poor nutrition, probably don’t exercise as much,” said Labos.

“Anybody who’s suffering from these problems is going to have several confounders that are going to increase the risk of cardiovascular disease.”

But Labos says cocaine is known to be the most damaging to the heart.

“In terms of which [illegal] substances are directly damaging to the heart, we clearly have a number one winner, and that would be cocaine,” Labos said.

“Cocaine is the one that’s very deliberately going to lead to higher rates of atherosclerosis [thickened artery walls] by increasing your heart rate, increasing your blood pressure and actually having a direct effect on thrombosis, so clogging of the arteries,” he added.

Opioids such as fentanyl and heroin also influence heart activity, Labos says. They lengthen the QT interval — a measure of heart electrical activity — which increases the risk of abnormal heart rhythms and potentially life-threatening cardiac issues.

Brain injury is another significant risk associated with illicit drug use.

Mauricio Garcia-Barrera, a psychology professor at the University of Victoria, says opioids such as fentanyl and heroin cause respiratory depression, leading to oxygen deprivation in the brain that damages brain cells.

“Between one to two minutes [after overdose, before resuscitation], the brain damage can start initiating, and between five minutes of cells in the brain not receiving oxygen, then we have the death of brain cells,” said Garcia-Barrera.

By contrast, stimulants like cocaine accelerate brain aging by damaging neurotransmitters, causing grey matter loss that leads to cognitive decline and impaired decision-making.

 

Our content is always free.

Subscribe to get BTN’s latest news and analysis, or donate to our journalism fund.

Brain changes

Neuropsychologist Carolyn Lemsky is the clinical director of Community Head Injury Resource Services, a Toronto not-for-profit that runs a brain rehabilitation program.

Lemsky says many of her patients want to quit using substances. But habitual drug use alters brain structure and function, making it difficult to quit.

“In people who use opioids and who have a lot of these non-fatal overdoses, their brain changes in many ways,” said Lemsky.

The brain atrophies in critical areas like the hippocampus, the region responsible for memory, and the temporal lobes. Simultaneously, neural pathways linked to habitual behaviour “get a little fatter,” reinforcing addiction.

This rewiring “tilts the brain toward immediate gratification,” Lemsky said. Meanwhile, impairments in the hippocampus diminish the ability to recall the negative consequences of past actions, making recovery even more challenging.

But Lemsky says alcohol remains the most problematic substance for her clients, due to its widespread use.

And while it is a legal substance, alcohol also affects the brain, she says. It leads to cognitive issues like memory and executive functioning problems. Many of her clients develop alcohol-related dementia due to vitamin deficiencies caused by chronic alcohol use.

Cannabis, another legal substance, has also become “more and more problematic” for her clients over the past 15 years, Lemsky says.

“Cannabis also interferes with cognitive functioning,” she said.

According to Health Canada’s 2024 cannabis survey, 80 per cent of Canadians recognize cannabis can be habit-forming and detrimental to youth brain development. Only 71 per cent said they were aware it is linked to mental health issues such as psychosis.

‘Further research is needed’

In a statement to Canadian Affairs, Health Canada said the long-term health consequences of illegal drug use require further study.

“Further research is needed to better understand long-term impacts of opioid-related harms, including the relationship between brain injury and substance use, as well as predisposing factors and long-term effects,” said Marie-Pier Burelle, a media relations advisor for Health Canada.

Lemsky says it is problematic that the Canadian Drugs and Substances Strategy — the government’s framework for addressing substance use-related harms — does not address the known health effects of illegal drugs.

“If you look at the Canada drug strategy, it doesn’t mention brain or cognition once,” she said.

In 2022, NDP MP Alistair MacGregor introduced Bill C-277, a private member’s bill that aims to establish a national strategy on brain injuries. The bill was at the report stage when Parliament was prorogued in early January. Further work on the bill could resume in the next parliamentary session.

“They need a brain injury strategy,” says Lemsky, explaining that cognitive impairment is the leading reason people disengage from medical support services, such as getting treatment for addiction.

“The treatment has too high a cognitive load and isn’t adapted to their needs,” she said. “They can’t manage, and they leave.”


This article was produced through the Breaking Needles Fellowship Program, which provided a grant to Canadian Affairs, a digital media outlet, to fund journalism exploring addiction and crime in Canada. Articles produced through the Fellowship are co-published by Break The Needle and Canadian Affairs.

Our content is always free.

Subscribe to get BTN’s latest news and analysis, or donate to our journalism fund.

Continue Reading

Trending

X